, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 483–496 | Cite as

Phylogenies from genetic and morphological characters do not support a revision of Gigasporaceae (Glomeromycota) into four families and five genera

  • Joseph B. MortonEmail author
  • Zola Msiska
Original Paper


The family Gigasporaceae consisted of the two genera Gigaspora and Scutellospora when first erected. In a recent revision of this classification, Scutellospora was divided into three families and four genera based on two main lines of evidence: (1) phylogenetic patterns of coevolving small and large rRNA genes and (2) morphology of spore germination shields. The rRNA trees were assumed to accurately reflect species evolution, and shield characters were selected because they correlated with gene trees. These characters then were used selectively to support gene trees and validate the classification. To test this new classification, a phylogenetic tree was reconstructed from concatenated 25S rRNA and β-tubulin gene sequences using 35% of known species in Gigasporaceae. A tree also was reconstructed from 23 morphological characters represented in 71% of known species. Results from both datasets showed that the revised classification was untenable. The classification also failed to accurately represent sister group relationships amongst higher taxa. Only two clades were fully resolved and congruent among datasets: Gigaspora and Racocetra (a clade consisting of species with spores having one inner germinal wall). Other clades were unresolved, which was attributed in part to undersampling of species. Topology of the morphology-based phylogeny was incongruent with gene evolution. Five shield characters were reduced to three, of which two were phylogenetically uninformative because they were homoplastic. Therefore, most taxa erected in the new classification are rejected. The classification is revised to restore the family Gigasporaceae, within which are the three genera Gigaspora, Racocetra, and Scutellospora. This classification does not reflect strict topology of either gene or morphological evolution. Further revisions must await sampling of additional characters and taxa to better ascertain congruence between datasets and infer a more accurate phylogeny of this important group of fungi.


Classification Nomeclature Phylogeny 25S rRNA gene β-tubulin gene Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi 



The authors wish to thank Bill Wheeler for critical assistance in manipulating and processing of AMF cultures. We also thank Dirk Redecker for insightful comments and Chris Walker for advice on nomenclatorial issues. Funding support was provided by National Science Foundation grants DBI0650735 and DEB0649341 to Joseph Morton.


  1. Bentivenga SP, Morton JB (1995) A monograph of the genus Gigaspora incorporating developmental patterns of morphological characters. Mycologia 87:720–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Queiroz K (1985) The ontogenetic method for determining character polarity and its relevance to phylogenetic systematics. Sys Zool 34:280–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Queiroz K, Gauthier J (1992) Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:449–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Queiroz K, Cantino PD (2001) Phylogenetic nomenclature and the phylocode. Bull Zool Nomenclature 58:254–271Google Scholar
  5. Dickson S (2004) The Arum-Paris continuum of mycorrhizal symbioses. New Phytol 163:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyle JJ (1992) Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst Bot 17:144–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franke M, Morton JB (1994) Ontogenetic comparisons of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi Scutellospora heterogama and Scutellospora pellucida: revision of taxonomic character concepts, species descriptions, and phylogenetic hypotheses. Canad J Bot 72:122–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerdemann JW, Trappe JM (1974) The endogonaceae of the Pacific Northwest. Mycol Mem 5:76Google Scholar
  9. Hart MM, Reader RJ (2002) Taxonomic basis for variation in the colonization strategy of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol 153:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. Univ. Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  11. Hibbett DS, Donoghue MJ (1998) Integrating phylogenetic analysis and classification in fungi. Mycologia 90:347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillis DM (1987) Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 18:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillis DM, Dixon MT (1991) Ribosomal DNA: molecular evolution and phylogenetic inference. Q Rev Biol 66:411–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hillis DM, Pollock DD, McGuire JA, Zwickl DJ (1993) Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol 52:124–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maddison DR, Maddison WP (2005) MacClade. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Meier R (1997) A test and review of the empirial performance of the ontogenetic criterion. Syst Biol 46:699–721Google Scholar
  17. Morton JB (1990) Evolutionary relationships among arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the Endogonaceae. Mycologia 82:192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morton JB (1995) Taxonomic and phylogenetic divergence among five Scutellospora species (Glomales, Zygomycetes) based on comparative developmental sequences. Mycologia 87:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morton JB (2009) Reconciliation of conflicting morphological and rRNA gene phylogenies of fungi in Glomeromycota based on underlying patterns and processes. In: Azcon-Aguilar C, Barea JM, Gianinazzi S, Gianinazzi-Pearson V (eds) Mycorrhizas—functional processes and ecological impact. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 137–154Google Scholar
  20. Morton JB, Benny GL (1990) Revised classification of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Zygomycetes): a new order, Glomales, two new suborders, Glomineae and Gigasporineae, and two new families, Acaulosporaceae and Gigasporaceae, with an emendation of Glomaceae. Mycotaxon 37:471–491Google Scholar
  21. Morton JB, Redecker D (2001) Two new families of Glomales, Archaeosporaceae and Paraglomaceae, with two new genera Archaeospora and Paraglomus, based on concordant molecular and morphological characters. Mycologia 93:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morton JB, Bentivenga SP, Bever JD (1995) Discovery, measurement, and interpretation of diversity in symbiotic endomycorrhizal fungi (Glomales, Zygomycetes). Canad J Bot 73(suppl 1):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Msiska Z, Morton JB (2009a) Isolation and sequence analysis of a β-tubulin gene from arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhiza 19:501–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Msiska Z, Morton JB (2009b) Phylogenetic analysis of the Glomeromycota by partial β-tubulin gene sequences. Mycorrhiza 19:247–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nixon KC, Carpenter JM, Stevenson DW (2003) The phylocode is fatally flawed, and the “Linnaean” system can easily be fixed. Bot Rev 69:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oehl F, Sieverding E (2005) Pacispora, a new vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal genus in the Glomeromycetes. J Appl Bot 78:72–82Google Scholar
  27. Oehl F, de Souza FA, Sieverding E (2008) Revision of Scutellospora and description of five new genera and three new families in the arbuscular mycorrhizal-forming Glomeromycetes. Mycotaxon 106:311–360Google Scholar
  28. Öpik M, Moora M, Liira J, Zobel M (2006) Composition of root-colonizing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities in different ecosystems around the globe. J Ecol 94:778–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic, New York, pp 21–74Google Scholar
  30. Patterson C, Williams DM, Humphries CJ (1993) Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:153–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redecker D, Raab P (2006) Phylogeny of the Glomeromycota (arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi): Recent developments and new gene markers. Mycologia 98:885–895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schüβler A, Schwarzott D, Walker C (2001) A new fungal phylum, the Glomeromycota: phylogeny and evolution. Mycol Res 105:1413–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sereno PC (2007) Logical basis for morphological characters in phylogenetics. Cladistics 23:565–587Google Scholar
  34. Spain JL, Sieverding E, Oehl F (2006) Appendicispora: a new genus in the arbuscular mycorrhiza-forming Glomeromycetes, with a discussion of the genus Archaeospora. Mycotaxon 97:163–182Google Scholar
  35. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J (2008) A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the Raxml web servers. Syst Biol 57:758–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The CLUSTAL_X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 25:4876–4882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Van der Heijden MGA (2004) Taxonomic and functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhial fungi–is there any relationship? New Phytol 164:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Tuinen D, Jacquot E, Zhao B, Gollotte A, Gianinazzi-Pearson V (1998) Characterization of root colonisation profiles by a microcosm community of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi using 25S rDNA-targeted nested PCR. Mol Ecol 7:879–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Walker C, Sanders FE (1986) Taxonomic concepts in the Endogonaceae: III. The separation of Scutellospora gen. nov. from Gigaspora Gerd. & Trappe. Mycotaxon 27:169–182Google Scholar
  41. Walker C, Schüβler A (2004) Nomenclatural clarifications and new taxa in the Glomeromycota. Mycol Res 108:981–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker C, Vestberg M, Demircik F, Stockinger H, Saito M, Sawaki H, Nishmura I, Schüβler A (2007) Molecular phylogeny and new taxa in the Archaeosporales (Glomeromycota): Ambispora fennica gen. sp. Nov., Ambisporaceae fam. nov., and emendation of Archaeospora and Archaeosporaceae. Mycol Res 111:137–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiens JJ (1995) Polymorphic characters in phylogenetic systematics. Syst Biol 44:482–500Google Scholar
  44. Wiley EO (1981) Phylogenetics. The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.West Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations